Danes vs Muslims?

[Mikey]

If you have any examples of where the Bible may contradict itself, please tell me I'd love to know

Off the top of my head: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." as opposed to "Turn the other cheek.".

The P and J Creation Stories.

 

[Jebus]

As Hovercar already brought up, Mohammed is not a central figure. Mohammed literally means 'Quill (sp?) of God', and a pen can commit all sorts or atrocious acts in his life but still write cleanly.

Though Christian prophets were fallible like all men, as far as I know God *always* punished them for their sins, whereas there is no mention of repercussions for Muhammad for all the despicable acts he committed. Face it, Muhammad is a murderous rapist and pedophile, unworthy of being the Quill of God and everything he preached should be regarded as questionable.

Anyway, my point was that whatever Mohammeds personal crimes were, those did not shimmer through nor had any effect on the Qu'ran, and Islam as a whole.

Bullshit. They had *tremendous* effect. Mohammad was a morally reprehensible wretch. A man like him *cannot* be trusted to relay the word of God without tainting and perverting it in the process, hence entire teachings of Islam are likely tainted and perverted.

Even if I were to accept the fact that Mohammeds sexual deviancy tainted Islam, I still wound't see how the Qu'ran incites to violence that way. You're like one of those 'OMG CLINTON HAD SEX WITH HIS SECRETARY' straw-man builders.

Sure, I guess all the warfare and slaughter he did cannot be considered as 'violence', right?

Here the guy engages in a two-day slaughter of an untold number of Amalekites to get his two wives back:

David was a king of Israel - a secular leader of a secular entity. He was a God's favorite most of the time, but a secular ruler is frequently forced to get his hands dirty. Muhammad was (supposed to be) first and foremost a prophet of God, i.e. someone who relays his message to the world and lives by it, yet his cruelty and moral perversion make him as bad as any secular ruler of his era.

That's a pretty incredible crappy argument. Also, note how David was never punished for his sins, which negates one of your previous points.
I also don't see how Muhammed raiding caravans would be a religous statement. My guess is that his raiding activities were pretty secular too.

Also, Old Testament is just as bad as Q'uran, and I prefer the belief that much of the bullshit written there (including genocide of Amalekites) is deprecated by the New Testament.

Oh, so the New Testament negates all the bad stuff from the Old Testament, but the Qu'ran does not negate the bad stuff Mohammed did?

Yeh.

As far as sexual deviance goes, taking on an underage wife was the least of Muhammad's sins. But as I said above, lots of things were considered normal and socially acceptable back then, but that doesn't make them any more morally depraved.

Morally depraved now, not morally depraved then. Is this such a hard concept to understand? If tommorow a sentiment evolves that clapping your hands is morraly depraved, it is NOT VIABLE for people tomorrow to consider you a morraly depraved asshole because you clapped your hands today.

And killing cows *is* barbaric, but it is excusable if you kill them for food.

Yeh, that was *obviously* my point. Don't set up smoke screens.

I refer you to the quotes I have already posted, and I would be much obliged if you could post any source that would back this claim of yours up.

Not a chance. There was an exact same discussion on this forum two weeks ago. Plenty of sources were posted there by Rosh, so refer to them if you wish.

[/quote]

That's a lot of text on how the Islam is unfair to women - which I am not negating here. I don't see anything on violence there.

But no, really, I am writing out a contest. The first person that can prove to me that people are blowing themselves up in Iraq and Israel because the Qu'ran tells them to, and not because they are oppressed, abused, humiliated and desperate, wins a fucking gold monkey. If I were a Palestinian citizen, or someone living in Iraq, there's a good chance I would go all violent on my oppressors ass too. If I had the balls.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Even if I were to accept the fact that Mohammeds sexual deviancy tainted Islam, I still wound't see how the Qu'ran incites to violence that way. You're like one of those 'OMG CLINTON HAD SEX WITH HIS SECRETARY' straw-man builders.

Qur'an contains accounts of Muhammad's life (albeit not as many as Sirat Nabawiyya and haddiths). Muhammad's life included slaughtering of unarmed traders and sexual deviance. Put two and two together.

That's a pretty incredible crappy argument. Also, note how David was never punished for his sins, which negates one of your previous points.

Yes, he was. As I already stated, he was punished for the murder of Uriah with the death of the first child he had with Bathsheba (or whatever her name was). As for the genocide Alamekites, the Bible portrays them as abominations, sinners who rejected God both in word, deed and spirit. They were condemned to eternal torment, and Saul - and David after him - did God's bidding by slaughtering them. Pretty sick shit, really, and one of the reasons why Old Testament is as bad as Qur'an.

I also don't see how Muhammed raiding caravans would be a religous statement. My guess is that his raiding activities were pretty secular too.

*Everything* Muhammad did in political sphere had religious connotations.

Oh, so the New Testament negates all the bad stuff from the Old Testament, but the Qu'ran does not negate the bad stuff Mohammed did?

What?

New Testament doesn't "negate" anything, rather it portrays God, his nature, his work and his plan for mankind in an entirely different way. I'm more inclined to love the New Testament God than the Old Testament God, because the New Testament God is a god of peace, compassion and forgiveness, whereas the Old Testament God is a cruel and vengeful god, in addition to being a god of peace, compassion and forgiveness.

I also don't get how Qur'an is supposed to negate cruel or evil acts of Muhammad when Qur'an contains what are supposed to be Muhammad's words and even information about his life. Much of what is known about what kind of person Muhammad was comes from Qur'an.

Morally depraved now, not morally depraved then. Is this such a hard concept to understand? If tommorow a sentiment evolves that clapping your hands is morraly depraved, it is NOT VIABLE for people tomorrow to consider you a morraly depraved asshole because you clapped your hands today.

I don't believe in moral relativism. What is morally reprehensible now was morally reprehensible a thousand years ago and will be morally reprehensible a thousand years from now. Don't confuse social acceptability with moral acceptability.

That's a lot of text on how the Islam is unfair to women - which I am not negating here. I don't see anything on violence there.

Then I suggest you look again.

But no, really, I am writing out a contest. The first person that can prove to me that people are blowing themselves up in Iraq and Israel because the Qu'ran tells them to, and not because they are oppressed, abused, humiliated and desperate, wins a fucking gold monkey. If I were a Palestinian citizen, or someone living in Iraq, there's a good chance I would go all violent on my oppressors ass too. If I had the balls.

How many times do I have to state this - it's pretty fucking obvious causes of violent islamism are entirely political, social and economic. Yes, islamism has arisen as a backlash against Western oppression and economic exploitation of the Muslim world. *However*, teachings of Islam are easily perverted to justify cruel and barbaric acts islamists commit in their struggle against the West, and that's the whole bloody point.

 

[Duckman]

Negative. Purgatory is the waiting room. The medieval church preached that you could shorten that waiting time by paying money to them, but that's another story and has little to do with the modern Catholic faith.

The decision has already been made by the time you get into purgatory.

Put bluntly, purgatory does not exist. If it did, where in the Bible does it say so???

Just in case you couldn't figure out why everybody was laughing at you for being a dumbass.

No way!! I know it was poorly based and I apologize for it. No need to rub salt into the wounds Ashmo...hehehe

Off the top of my head: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." as opposed to "Turn the other cheek."

Did you know that if someone breaks into your house and tries to steal/hurt/murder you or your family, you may rightfully kill this man. It doesn't fit in with the referred "turn the other cheek" theory, but God really is the one who will deal out the revenge at the end, with the hell for eternity thing...

 

[Brother None]

Did you know that if someone breaks into your house and tries to steal/hurt/murder you or your family, you may rightfully kill this man. It doesn't fit in with the referred "turn the other cheek" theory, but God really is the one who will deal out the revenge at the end, with the hell for eternity thing...

What?! No! That's OT thinking right there, how does anything Jesus preaches make that right?

Anyway, a short list of biblical contradictions:

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

I got loads more if you want 'em?

 

[Mikey]

Put bluntly, purgatory does not exist. If it did, where in the Bible does it say so???

I say again: CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE ARE NOT, I REPEAT NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

 

[Jebus]

*However*, teachings of Islam are easily perverted to justify cruel and barbaric acts islamists commit in their struggle against the West, and that's the whole bloody point.

Wait - is that really your point? Because that's my point too. So, just so I don't waste any more time replying to stuff that in the end ends up in the same spot -

Is your point that the Islam is not INHERENTLY violent, the Islam does not INCITE violence, Muslims aren't violent because they follow Islam, and that the way Islam is used today is just a cover-up rhetoric for hate speech, kinda like Hitlers 'Gott mitt uns?' Is that your point?

Because it's mine too.

Funny, I thought your point was that Islam is some kind of perverted religion and that everyone who follows it automatically winds up to be some kind of wife-beating, explosives-strapping, kalashnikov-toting, unwashed hatemongerer. Because that seems to be everyone's idea nowadays - including Rosh.

*EDIT* Just one more thing -

I don't believe in moral relativism. What is morally reprehensible now was morally reprehensible a thousand years ago and will be morally reprehensible a thousand years from now. Don't confuse social acceptability with moral acceptability.

I suggest you pick up a sociology book. *Any* kind of sociology book.

Social acceptability is the exact same thing as moral acceptability. Morals are social constructions. Example: cannibalism. In many cultures (e.g. Papoea-New-Guinea), eating your dead son, father, friend, wife, neighbour etc. was the morally right thing to do - it was a way of honouring him. In our view, eating your son is so morally disgusting it fils us with anger. Are Papoea-New-Guineans evil? No.

Same thing with history. Like I-don't-know-who once said: "The past is another country. They do things differently there."

 

[Duckman]

I say again: CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE ARE NOT, I REPEAT NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Please explain...How then are christians meant to live their life, if the bible, and therefore no other book of morality/ethics, cannot explain HOW to be a christian???

 

[Brother None]

Please explain...How then are christians meant to live their life, if the bible, and therefore no other book of morality/ethics, cannot explain HOW to be a christian???

Huh, you want to hear even more contradictions featured in the Bible?

Ok.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

So, duckman, what think you of all these contradictions common to the Bible?

 

[Jebus]

I say again: CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE ARE NOT, I REPEAT NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Please explain...How then are christians meant to live their life, if the bible, and therefore no other book of morality/ethics, cannot explain HOW to be a christian???

JOH 21:6: "And HE rose up and spoke to them: "One day, a man will come clear of all blemish and filled with the perfection of God. You shall follow that man, for he shall lead you to the Kingdom of God. That man shall be known as Jebus, and his word shall be the law. You shall send a blank cheque to his home adress, and you shall revere him wherever he goes. So has it been spoken, so shall it be.""

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Wait - is that really your point? Because that's my point too. So, just so I don't waste any more time replying to stuff that in the end ends up in the same spot -

Is your point that the Islam is not INHERENTLY violent, the Islam does not INCITE violence, Muslims aren't violent because they follow Islam, and that the way Islam is used today is just a cover-up rhetoric for hate speech, kinda like Hitlers 'Gott mitt uns?' Is that your point?

Because it's mine too.

Funny, I thought your point was that Islam is some kind of perverted religion and that everyone who follows it automatically winds up to be some kind of wife-beating, explosives-strapping, kalashnikov-toting, unwashed hatemongerer. Because that seems to be everyone's idea nowadays - including Rosh.

I don't really consider Islam inherently evil, I just consider its teachings more inherently controversial and ambiguous than those of any other major religion, and thus more likely to be perverted and abused. When comparing the central Muslim figure - Muhammad - and the central Christian figure - Jesus Christ - I find that Muhammad is a person of questionable motives and morals, and therefore I strongly doubt any divine message he supposedly relayed. I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs. Take European Bosniaks, a Muslim nation known for their pacifism and liberalism. There are even examples of peaceful, stable and pluralist Islamic societies in the Middle East - Jordan, for instance.

I suggest you pick up a sociology book. *Any* kind of sociology book.

Social acceptability is the exact same thing as moral acceptability. Morals are social constructions. Example: cannibalism. In many cultures (e.g. Papoea-New-Guinea), eating your dead son, father, friend, wife, neighbour etc. was the morally right thing to do - it was a way of honouring him. In our view, eating your son is so morally disgusting it fils us with anger. Are Papoea-New-Guineans evil? No.

Same thing with history. Like I-don't-know-who once said: "The past is another country. They do things differently there."

Hmmm, perhaps I made a bit of an overstatement. I still claim that certain *elements* of morality are universal and absolute. Specifically, any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible. Murder, for instance, is a universally heinous and immoral crime, and any society that encourages - or doesn't sanction - murder is thus primitive and depraved society by universal standards. Pedophilia falls into the same category, really - it is unnatural, it hurts the child, hence it is amoral regardless of whether the society regards it as acceptable.

 

[Brother None]

Hmmm, perhaps I made a bit of an overstatement. I still claim that certain *elements* of morality are universal and absolute. Specifically, any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible. Murder, for instance, is a universally heinous and immoral crime, and any society that encourages - or doesn't sanction - murder is thus primitive and depraved society by universal standards. Pedophilia falls into the same category, really - it is unnatural, it hurts the child, hence it is amoral regardless of whether the society regards it as acceptable.

Yet most cultures do not consider it immoral if a soldier shoots another soldier.

Huh.

Go figure.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Yet most cultures do not consider it immoral if a soldier shoots another soldier.

Huh.

Go figure.

This just shows that man's morality is as full of ambiguous shit as man's religion, or just about anything related to man.

 

[Duckman]

Ok, Kharn:

Huh, you want to hear even more contradictions featured in the Bible?

I wasn't saying that any more examples were needed, I was purely referring to what Mikey said:

I say again: CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE ARE NOT, I REPEAT NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

I mean, the Bible and christianity have to be linked and how else would christianity function without the bible??

Anywho, back to your contradictions. I'm no bible scholar person, but why go down without a fight eh??

Pretty much all this has to do with is context. If you take a passage out and put it in a place where it isn't meant to go, it just sounds ridiculous and does contradict...

As for these passages, I'm studying what they say and the context of which they are placed and be posting as soon as I can make out some logical sense of what was being said...

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I mean, the Bible and christianity have to be linked and how else would christianity function without the bible??

Think of the Bible as a kind of a test. If you read the Bible and can tell true words of God from stupid and condemnable crap, then you are a good Christian and a true believer.

 

[Duckman]

I mean, the Bible and christianity have to be linked and how else would christianity function without the bible??

Think of the Bible as a kind of a test. If you read the Bible and can tell true words of God from stupid and condemnable crap, then you are a good Christian and a true believer.

But isn't the Bible the word of God??

I'm pretty sure it is, so that must mean that was has been written in it must be reffering to God and his power or whatever the cse may be.

Those Bibles that have the red lettering where Jesus is speaking is a strange thing too. As Jesus is the physical form of God, doesn't that mean that the rest of the bible should have red lettering too?? Seeing as it is all the word of God...

I'm not sure if they are a worldwide Bible type, but I have seen a few...

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Hmmm, perhaps I made a bit of an overstatement. I still claim that certain *elements* of morality are universal and absolute. Specifically, any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible. Murder, for instance, is a universally heinous and immoral crime, and any society that encourages - or doesn't sanction - murder is thus primitive and depraved society by universal standards. Pedophilia falls into the same category, really - it is unnatural, it hurts the child, hence it is amoral regardless of whether the society regards it as acceptable.

And yet, universal condemnation of murder fits quite neatly within the sociological interpretation of morals. Any society that allowed killing its own would be doomed to begin with. Even a primitive nomadic tribe would soon perish if its number of hunters or food providers fell beneath a certain level.

It's all darwinism y'see.

EDIT: Same can be said for pedophilia: it would be rather silly for a society to condone sex with girls who haven't yet reached a child-bearing age, let alone (*shock*) boys.

 

[Montez]

You know, it just occured to me that God hasn't written a new book in over a thousand years. If he doesn't come out with some new material soon people are going to start thinking he's a one trick pony.

 

[Duckman]

You know, it just occured to me that God hasn't written a new book in over a thousand years. If he doesn't come out with some new material soon people are going to start thinking he's a one trick pony.

Yeah, but considering the Bible was written over a timespan of maybe 100 years, I think he has some breathing room.

And I think it's more than a one trick pony as it is 66 books, all pretty much differing from any other book... But I see your point

 

[Jebus]

I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs. Take European Bosniaks, a Muslim nation known for their pacifism and liberalism. There are even examples of peaceful, stable and pluralist Islamic societies in the Middle East - Jordan, for instance.

See, this is just bad. BAD.

1. Western != civilized. China was civilized long before the West was, and civilization in Western Eurasia started in the Middle East. Unless you aren't using 'civilized' in its actual meaning here, and by 'civilized' actually mean Western, in which case you're just a racist asshole.

2. Pacifism and stability are in no way Western values. Instead; conquest, war, 'heroism' and power are. Learn your history. There's only one kind of culture I can think of that actually has pacifism as a value, and that's buddhism.

3. Western culture is not superiour to any other kind of culture, and should not be held up as the pinnacle of human achievement.
What, are you still stuck in the colonial age?

I suggest you pick up a sociology book. *Any* kind of sociology book.

Social acceptability is the exact same thing as moral acceptability. Morals are social constructions. Example: cannibalism. In many cultures (e.g. Papoea-New-Guinea), eating your dead son, father, friend, wife, neighbour etc. was the morally right thing to do - it was a way of honouring him. In our view, eating your son is so morally disgusting it fils us with anger. Are Papoea-New-Guineans evil? No.

Same thing with history. Like I-don't-know-who once said: "The past is another country. They do things differently there."

Hmmm, perhaps I made a bit of an overstatement. I still claim that certain *elements* of morality are universal and absolute. Specifically, any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible. Murder, for instance, is a universally heinous and immoral crime, and any society that encourages - or doesn't sanction - murder is thus primitive and depraved society by universal standards. Pedophilia falls into the same category, really - it is unnatural, it hurts the child, hence it is amoral regardless of whether the society regards it as acceptable.

The only universal taboo around the world is incest. Even in Western culture, Murder is not considered 'universally heinous and immoral crime'. Case in point: state executions in the USA. But you're right, though, the USA is a 'primitive and depraved society', as you so eloquently put it. It does prove, though, that morals and values differ from perspective to perspective, and that each society has different institutions and values in its social structure. And

Specifically, any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible.

this is especially not true, especially not in Western culture. From gladiator rings over medieval tournaments on to present-day boxing, wrestling and violent movies and games, Western culture has considered violence to be a load of fun. Think things through, Ratty.

And now on to the actual point -

Pedophilia falls into the same category, really - it is unnatural, it hurts the child, hence it is amoral regardless of whether the society regards it as acceptable.

Now remember what we just learned about violence and murder. Values and morals are dependant of the needs of the social group. What you consider morally reprehensible and what not are nothing but the values of your present day social structure that you have internalized.

Children were sexually abused and married before they were even fourteen over the entire world until only relatively recently - the early middle ages for Europe, IIRC. Heck, most likely Mary mother of God was still a child when she gave birth to Jesus. Pedophilia was not considered morally reprehensible then. It's just that simple. That value simply wasn't there. It might be hard to grasp, but it *really* wasn't there. There is not a single ancient text (that I know of) that condemns pedophilia. Not even the Bible, IIRC. Pedhophelia was not outlawed in any law system until relatively recently. pedophilia might seem disgusting to you and me, but that's because of our present-day values. It's really not all that hard to understand, Ratty.